TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies had settled their disputes before the Mediation Centre and the petitioner, pursuant to the settlement, had also paid the agreed amount to the Respondent No. 2/ complainant. 3. Respondent No. 2 filed the Complaint Case Nos. 617263/2016 and 617264/2016 on 08.05.2015 against the petitioner and certain other accused persons, under Sections 138/141/142 of NI Act. 4. The Complaint Case No. 617263/2016 was filed with respect to cheque bearing No. 381857 dated 05.02.2015 for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and cheque bearing No. 335813 dated 05.01.2015 for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/-. The cheques got dishonoured 07.03.2015. 5. The Complaint Case No. 617264/2016 was filed with respect to cheque bearing No. 215590 dated 11.03.2015 for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and cheque bearing No. 915887 dated 11.03.2015 for an amount of Rs.45,000/-. The cheques got dishonoured on 11.03.2015. 6. The complaints were filed by Respondent No. 2 alleging that the company namely M/s Kassa Finvest Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter 'the company') in which the petitioner holds 5% shares, had represented a rosy picture by portraying that they were in the business of trading in security market and persuaded Responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he learned Trial Court for placing on record the settlement deed on the next date of hearing and on the said date, the learned Trial Court was apprised about the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Mediation Centre on 16.05.2016. The parties thereafter sought time for filing the settlement deed. 13. On 30.08.2016, the parties once again took time to file the written settlement agreement and on the said date, the learned Trial Court also dismissed the application filed by the Accused No. 3 / Mr. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (chief financial officer), seeking discharge. 14. On 22.07.2017, the complainant, in the absence of the petitioner, submitted that the present petitioner is ready to settle the matter and the settlement talks are still going on. 15. Thereafter on 19.04.2018, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Accused No. 2 / petitioner, that the entire payment to the complainant in compliance of Mediation Settlement dated 16.05.2016 has been made and sought time to place on record the said settlement agreement and the documents evidencing the said payment. But the learned Trial Court still proceeded with framing of notice under Section 251....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... He submitted that the learned Trial Court while dealing with the question of the authenticity of the settlement agreement did not appreciate the fact that the Respondent No. 2 himself stated the same before the Trial Court and the same was duly recorded in order dated 15.11.2018. The Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the petitioner also paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in terms of the said agreement dated 01.04.2016. 23. He submitted that the Trial Court has not followed the judgement passed by this Court in Dayawati v. Yogesh Kumar Gosain, 2017:DHC:6199-DB, whereby this Court had held that where the settlement agreement is entered into through formal mediation process by the parties, the parties should be held accountable for honouring the same. 24. He submitted that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the Respondent No. 2 at no point has disputed the settlement. He submitted that on 16.05.2016, the fact of settlement was duly recorded and the proceedings were signed by the parties as well as their respective counsel. 25. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submitted that the impugned order does not warrant any interference and the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttled the two matters, that is, the complaints which were filed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the NI Act. Respondent No. 2 also agreed to withdraw the complaints and to make necessary statement before the learned Trial Court. The proceedings further record that the statement is made on his own free will and without any force, pressure or coercion. The proceedings were duly signed by Respondent No. 2, the petitioner representing the company, as well the learned counsel who represented the parties. 31. Prior to the recording of the statement by the learned Mediator, the parties had entered into a settlement agreement dated 01.04.2016. The agreement is duly signed by Respondent No. 2 as well as the other parties. The terms of the settlement mention that the parties have settled their disputes, which includes the two complaints which are the subject matter of the present proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. In terms of the said settlement, Respondent No. 2 had agreed that on payment of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- against the entire outstanding amount, the claims towards Respondent No. 2 would be settled. The terms of the payment were also mentioned in the said agreeme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 39. The reliance of the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Dayawati v. Yogesh Kumar Gosain : 243 (2017) DELHI LAW TIMES 117 (DB), is also without any merits. The judgment was passed on 17.10.2017. 40. The Hon'ble Division Bench, noting that the parties after entering into settlement after being referred to mediation, try to wriggle away from the responsibilities and liabilities, had passed certain directions so that strict compliances of the settlement can be made. 41. It was held that the same has to be placed before the Court, which is to be satisfied that the agreement was lawful and the consent of the parties was voluntary and not obtained through any force, pressure, or undue influence. 42. The argument that the settlement agreement was not placed before the Court and the statement was not made before the Court so as to make the agreement binding between the parties, is nothing but mala fide attempt on the part of Respondent No. 2 to wriggle away from the liabilities after having accepted the consideration. 43. If the settlements are discarded and rejected on such grounds, the par....